Ross Wants New FCC Study of BPL Interference
BPL companies are girding to fight HR-462 by Rep. Ross (D-Ark.), which would order a new FCC study of interference to licensed radio operations by BPL. Similar language in a 2006 telecom bill passed the House, startling the industry. ARRL expects Ross to have new clout as a majority member of the House Telecom Subcommittee, said CEO Dave Sumner.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
It’s hard to say how much clout Ross gained, said Brett Kilbourne, regulatory dir. of the United Power Line Council. A “certain amount of luck” got the BPL language in the telecom bill passed by the House last year, he said. Since then industry has been “educating” those on the Hill and “when we do that we have always have gotten a positive response.” Industry is waiting to see if “extraordinary” measures are needed against the bill, he said: “At this point it’s a matter of educating.”
Ross’s bill recognizes that BPL interference isn’t a settled issue, said Sumner. He’s confident BPL language will get to conference committee if attached to a major telecom bill, as in 2006, he said. NAB and MSTV backed the ARRL in U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., challenging the FCC rules. ARRL may or may not seek broadcaster support for the Ross bill, Sumner said. “Concerns that broadcasters have about BPL certainly… will lead to their being interested in this legislation,” he said. HR-462 is more specific than the 2006 measure defining what the FCC would have to study, he said.
ARRL has made the FCC rules on BPL interference to mobile stations a “convenient rallying cry to get the broadcasters on board,” Kilbourne said. But he doesn’t see any court “tying the FCC’s hands forever after saying you can’t come up with any bright lines,” he said. Net neutrality and USF are among Hill issues of interest to the BPL industry, he said. On net neutrality, he said, BPL stayed out of last session’s fight, though it understood concerns about incumbents discriminating against competitors.
In the states, Ind. BPL bill HB-1068 is “bare-boned” compared to the law Tex. enacted, he said. Cal., Tex. and N.Y. have moved to clarify rules for BPL, he said, but a La. BPL proceeding has lost momentum. State BPL issues involve affiliate transactions, rights of way and pole attachments, he said. The UPLC doesn’t plan to lobby in all the states, but will act once utilities in any state indicate they are ready to deploy, he said. “There is no sense in getting folks riled up over something that may not be deployed for a while,” he said: “So we have been fairly judicious about what we have done at the state level.”